An ‘oppositionless’ Assembly raising questions addressed to the Speaker, with not a single opposition member in the House, is unexpected and hardly acceptable in a true democracy. Yet in Nagaland, this has become routine. The ongoing 8th session of the 14th Nagaland Legislative Assembly is no exception.
The Parliament, and in the case of a state, the Legislative Assembly, is often described as the temple of democracy. It is in this chamber that governance finds expression through debate, disagreement, scrutiny and accountability. The absence of an Opposition fundamentally alters this character. When every elected member occupies the ruling bench, the line between government and watchdog disappears.
This unusual arrangement has been justified in the name of finding a solution to the Indo-Naga political question. The intent may be rooted in unity and collective responsibility, but democracy is not sustained by intent alone.
It survives on structure, and that structure demands checks and balances. An Opposition is not an enemy of the state. It is an institutional necessity that questions decisions, tests policies and holds the government to account.
Without an Opposition, the government effectively functions without restraint. In other parts of the world, such concentration of power is described as authoritarian. Even if that label appears harsh, the risks are real. Policies pass without rigorous debate. Administrative lapses go unchallenged. Public grievances find no structured voice inside the House.
This is a costly and risky experiment. If the long awaited political solution does not materialize, the present crop of elected leaders will be answerable to posterity for weakening democratic norms.
Statecraft and electoral politics are still evolving among the Naga people. In such a context, the influence of money and power can easily tilt outcomes. That makes institutional safeguards even more crucial. Democracy is not strengthened by unanimity alone. It is strengthened by principled dissent. Without it, the temple of democracy risks becoming an echo chamber.